From article by Kavanaugh in the Minnesota Law Review
Some are saying this is why he was chosen over others.
My goal in this forum is far
more modest: to identify problems worthy of additional attention,
sketch out some possible solutions, and call for further
discussion.
I. PROVIDE SITTING PRESIDENTS WITH A TEMPORARY
DEFERRAL OF CIVIL SUITS AND OF CRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS
First, my chief takeaway from working in the White House
for five-and-a-half years—and particularly from my nearly
three years of work as Staff Secretary, when I was fortunate to
travel the country and the world with President Bush—is that
the job of President is far more difficult than any other civilian
position in government. It frankly makes being a member of
Congress or the judiciary look rather easy by comparison. The
decisions a President must make are hard and often life-ordeath,
the pressure is relentless, the problems arise from all directions,
the criticism is unremitting and personal, and at the
end of the day only one person is responsible. There are not
eight other colleagues (as there are on the Supreme Court), or
ninety-nine other colleagues (as there are in the Senate), or 434
other colleagues (as there are in the House). There is no review
panel for presidential decisions and few opportunities for doovers.
The President alone makes the most important decisions.
It is true that presidents carve out occasional free time to
exercise or read or attend social events. But don’t be fooled. The
job and the pressure never stop. We exalt and revere the presidency
in this country—yet even so, I think we grossly underestimate how difficult the job is.
At the end of the Clinton presidency,
John Harris wrote an excellent book about President
Clinton entitled The Survivor.23 I have come to think that the
book’s title is an accurate description for all presidents in the
modern era.
Having seen first-hand how complex and difficult that job
is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his
never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The
country wants the President to be “one of us” who bears the
same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe
that the President should be excused from some of the burdens
of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.
This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or
1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the
President should be required to shoulder the same obligations
that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake.
Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly
would have been better off if President Clinton could have
focused on Osama bin Laden24 without being distracted by the
Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminalinvestigation
offshoots.25 To be sure, one can correctly say that
President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers
during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else.
And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the
Supreme Court in Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than
their proper duty under the law as it then existed.26 But the
law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent
to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed
while the President is in office.
With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to
enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against
presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred
while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court
reached in Clinton v. Jones27—that presidents are not constitutionally
entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been
entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But
the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a
temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office.28
Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain
members of the military.29 Deferral would allow the President
to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.
Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with
respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.30
In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting
a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation,
including from questioning by criminal prosecutors
or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving
around a President are inevitably politicized by both
their supporters and critics. As I have written before, “no Attorney
General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility
to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether
in favor of the President or against him,
depending on the individual leading the investigation and its
results.”31 The indictment and trial of a sitting President,
moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it
unable to function with credibility in either the international or
domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest,
especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation—
including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators—
are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal
investigations take the President’s focus away from his or her
responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned
about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably
going to do a worse job as President.
One might raise at least two important critiques of these
ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of
government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not
ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The
point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate
checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations
until the President is out of office.32
A second possible concern is that the country needs a check
against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the
Constitution already provides that check. If the President does
something dastardly, the impeachment process is available.33
No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish
what the Constitution assigns to the Congress.34 Moreover,
an impeached and removed President is still subject to
criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes
a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we
should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal
investigations, or criminal prosecutions.35 The President’s job is
difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President’s
focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or
criminal investigation and possible prosecution.36
If you want to read the whole thinghttps://t.co/rDHJs5RiUY

1. Do you agree with what Kavanaugh said in the article?

2. Can Kavanaugh or the SCOTUS make such a law as Kavanaugh suggests?

3. If Congress made such a law, would Kavanaugh have to recuse himself if a challenge to the law reached the Supreme Court considering his previous published opinion?

4. Would the President be so overburdened with things to do if the POTUS was reigned in to only the powers and duties ascribed to the office in the Constitution?

It's not the same Jim and why do you think her income was only derived from teaching? I believe her chair at Harvard was endowed anyways, so students did not fund her.
Are you trying to say you think there should be upper compensation limits in this country?

Where did Jim say that It was only derived from teaching. She is smart,accomplished,wealthy but still a lying hypocrite. Why do you lose focus when asked a simple question regarding the hypocrisy of her Harvard salary while maintaining her opposition for the outlandish price of college.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where did Jim say that It was only derived from teaching. She is smart,accomplished,wealthy but still a lying hypocrite. Why do you lose focus when asked a simple question regarding the hypocrisy of her Harvard salary while maintaining her opposition for the outlandish price of college.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because he’s wrong about what’s driving the cost of college

Meanwhile, teaching salaries, one of the biggest single line items, have remained relatively flat—much like those across most of the U.S. labor market. Despite heavy spending by a handful of top universities for the most talented, grant-winning researchers, most schools aren't seeing big wage pressures, largely because teaching jobs are in high demand.
"Overall, the aggregate level that institutions are spending on teaching and student-related services has been pretty much stable for the past 15 to 20 years, adjusted for inflation" said Franke, of the University of Massachusetts in Boston.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.

Meanwhile, teaching salaries, one of the biggest single line items, have remained relatively flat—much like those across most of the U.S. labor market. Despite heavy spending by a handful of top universities for the most talented, grant-winning researchers, most schools aren't seeing big wage pressures, largely because teaching jobs are in high demand.
"Overall, the aggregate level that institutions are spending on teaching and student-related services has been pretty much stable for the past 15 to 20 years, adjusted for inflation" said Franke, of the University of Massachusetts in Boston.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She made 400k teaching one class. That’s flat? That’s not driving the cost if tuition?

You are disagreeing, just because you can’t concede that even in this one obvious instance, I am right. You can’t do it. If I said two plus two was four, you’d deny it.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She made 400k teaching one class. That’s flat? That’s not driving the cost if tuition?

You are disagreeing, just because you can’t concede that even in this one obvious instance, I am right. You can’t do it. If I said two plus two was four, you’d deny it.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you know what an endowed chair is?Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.

Do you know what an endowed chair is?Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes I do. And I know that professors who make 400k for teaching one class, are obviously a big driver if the cost of tuition. And equally obvious, is that anyone making 400k for teaching one class, has zero business pretending to be outraged at the cost of tuition. One would only deny these things, if one were hopelessly, blindly, partisan.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Warren did draw a large salary for teaching at Harvard (her 2011 campaign disclosure form indicates a salary for 2010-2011 of $429,981 although her paperwork doesn’t indicate how many classes she was actually teaching) to bad we dont know were Trumps money was made???

clearly you you are confusing course with class many a professor who teaches 1 class (2 h/week for 13 weeks course )

How many classes do you think Alan Dershowitz’s Taught at Harvard law ?

proposals for faculty workload reform and attacks on intellectual's generally come from the political right and have been associated with anti-labor and anti-intellectual values. you reflect this 100% she obviously a big driver if the cost of tuition ... really she taught for what 1 year or as you put it 1 classes and she is the driver of tuition ok sure it is.... your hate for this women is in beast mode hopelessly, blindly, partisan. coming from you thats rich

Meanwhile the current president created a bogus university and ripped off everyone, was sued and LOST the suit. Yet no one caresPosted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a good point. Between Loser Trump's Failed Fake University, Chief Sh!tt!ng Bull's 400k Class and fake Diversity CheckMark, and with the Moscow Frau's Burlington College, Higher Ed should be very wary of Politicians

The mind boggles at what was taught in that class.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She taught courses on commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy
It's not like she taught at Berkeley.
The odds are good that some of the future SCOTUS judges will have taken a course from her, since more than twice as many have gone to Harvard as any other law school.
In 1992-93, Senator Warren served as the Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law at Harvard Law School; in 1995, she accepted a permanent appointment as the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law. Before coming to Harvard, she taught at the law schools of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Texas, University of Houston, and Rutgers University. She taught courses on commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy, and has written more than a hundred articles and ten books.

She has won teaching awards at multiple schools, and graduating classes at Harvard twice recognized her with the Sacks-Freund Award for excellence in teaching. In 2013, she received the Harvard Law School Association Award. National Law Journal named her one of the Most Influential Lawyers of the Decade, TIME magazine has named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world three times, and she has been honored by the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association with the Lelia J. Robinson Award. Senator Warren was elected to the American Law Institute, and later to the Council of ALI where she served as Vice President of the Institute. She also was elected to the National Bankruptcy Conference, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and as a Theodore Roosevelt Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. In 2014, she was honored with the Roosevelt Institute’s Franklin D. Roosevelt Distinguished Public Service Award.

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.

She taught courses on commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy
It's not like she taught at Berkeley.
The odds are good that some of the future SCOTUS judges will have taken a course from her, since more than twice as many have gone to Harvard as any other law school.
In 1992-93, Senator Warren served as the Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law at Harvard Law School; in 1995, she accepted a permanent appointment as the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law. Before coming to Harvard, she taught at the law schools of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Texas, University of Houston, and Rutgers University. She taught courses on commercial law, contracts, and bankruptcy, and has written more than a hundred articles and ten books.

She has won teaching awards at multiple schools, and graduating classes at Harvard twice recognized her with the Sacks-Freund Award for excellence in teaching. In 2013, she received the Harvard Law School Association Award. National Law Journal named her one of the Most Influential Lawyers of the Decade, TIME magazine has named her one of the 100 most influential people in the world three times, and she has been honored by the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association with the Lelia J. Robinson Award. Senator Warren was elected to the American Law Institute, and later to the Council of ALI where she served as Vice President of the Institute. She also was elected to the National Bankruptcy Conference, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and as a Theodore Roosevelt Fellow of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. In 2014, she was honored with the Roosevelt Institute’s Franklin D. Roosevelt Distinguished Public Service Award.

If you let them tell it... all that was because of the fake Diversity CheckMark .. not hard work But Kavanaugh is a saint for feeding the homeless.. and his written opinions should not be considered ...

If you let them tell it... all that was because of the fake Diversity CheckMark .. not hard work But Kavanaugh is a saint for feeding the homeless.. and his written opinions should not be considered ...

No, Kavanaugh is a good person for feeding the homeless. Refreshing to see if anything. Also coaches Kid's basketball and does car pool. Again, refreshing to see.

and you do know that opinions can never be wrong, that's why they are called opinions. Dale Carnegie 101

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."

"I listed myself (in the) directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am," Warren told reporters May 3, 2012. "Nothing like that ever happened. That was absolutely not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off."

"Warren’s campaign team could never uncover any documents that confirmed Native American heritage in her family."

"The New England Historic Genealogical Society also could not find any."

"We have no proof that Elizabeth Warren's great-great-great-grandmother O.C. Sarah Smith either is or is not of Cherokee descent,' society spokesman Tom Champoux told the Herald for a May 2012 story. (When we called the society, a spokesman said we should look at its statements from 2012.)"

Last edited by The Dad Fisherman; 07-12-2018 at 08:59 AM..

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."

That statement in and of itself doesn't bother me, but just remember however there are only a small percentage of true native american's; we all are descendants from what those first american's would consider illegal immigrants.

I stated before, I'm ok with tougher immigration laws, provided they are balanced and fair. I'm not sure DJT understands that the country as a whole is facing a labor shortage down the road, so you can only take that policy too far before it puts a serious burden on the manufacturing and farming industries and others.

Just like I'm concerned about DJT latest chest beating get the base all excited beat down on our Nato allies as the summit begins; asking them to pay a higher % of GDP than we currently do is a really great way to start the summit. America wins nothing if we alienate the allies we need to keep Russia and others in check, yeah negotiate a fair deal, but let's do it smartly.

Just curious what you would consider balanced and fair? It seems to me that people coming from Asia,Europe, and most of the other countries that have to fly do so legally. otherwise they would not gain entry at customs. Those to our south who refuse to seek legal avenues of entry merely get smuggled or walk across a border that is not protect sufficiently.

What you don't hear is Trump giving away your hard earned dollars to illegals or putting them ahead of us. You don't hear Trump rolling over you know face down ass up to the rest of the world like the previous status quo.

USA NO LONGER A DOORMAT!!!

Or trump saying I will fix the tax system. I won't tell you if I paid taxes or not, but trust me, if i didn't, I am smart. I will change it.

Oh yeah, he did say it and he didn't fix it.Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device